Pennsylvania’s Transit Crisis Shows What’s Broken About U.S. Transit Funding

I would like to steal Jarrett Walker’s opening line from his piece, The Fall of Philadelphia: “The Pennsylvania State Senate has decided that the transit system of America’s fifth largest city should be substantially destroyed.”

Because of the insanity and extent of the carnage, even though I don’t live in Pennsylvania, I’ve been following its transit crisis that threatens public transit throughout the state.

This has centered on SEPTA, the Philadelphia region’s rail and bus network, which has a daily ridership of over 700,000 people.

Without a funding solution, SEPTA service will eventually be cut by 45%.

But it’s about much more than Philly or even Pennsylvania.

This is a reflection of what’s broken about how our country views and funds public transit.

At a time when commutes are longer, traffic is worsening, summers are hotter due to local (too much concrete) and global (too much CO2) environmental destruction, we need more public transit not less.

Republican state senators have so far refused to support new funding. This puts at risk the mobility and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of riders. It also threatens everyone’s commute, as so many of these people will turn to driving on clogged city streets.

Transit Funding in Pennsylvania: A Broken Funding Pipeline

There’s, of course, a long story unique to Pennsylvania. I’ll stick with the broad points and keep this relevant to any transit fight.

The story must begin with the fact that, since the automobile became a fixture of American society, at both federal and state levels, public transit has received a much smaller percentage of funding.

We see the results of going all-in on highways: crippling traffic, unwalkable cities, and ever-increasing costs of car-dependency, for both drivers and society at large.

The other result is that cities and states that did have more mass-transit-driven, dense cities (like Philadelphia) got very little federal support.

Even within those states, rural counties did not want to fund transit for cities. There’s logic to this, but I’ll explain why I think it’s self-destructive later.

Regardless, the end result is that for decades, it has been a battle to fund transit.

In 2007, the state legislation passed what I think was a smart redistribution of highway funds to transit. They took some of the toll money from the Pennsylvania Turnpike and gave it to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, which then spent the money on roads and transit..

That funding has now expired and hasn’t been renewed. Without more funding, SEPTA, and other public transit agencies in the state, will have to cut service. Amtrak will also see cuts on its New York to Harrisburg line, the Keystone Service.

The Democratic governor, Josh Shapiro, wants to fund it. The Democrat-majority state house has passed bills to do so. The Republican-majority state senate has killed all of these bills.

The logic of these republicans is simple: why should rural taxpayers subsidize public transit used by urbanites?

It’s this logic that has gotten us here in the first place. Failure to have sustained funding for public transit, both at the federal and state levels, places our mass transit systems at risk of losing service.

Here’s why this logic is hypocritical.

The Car-First Double Standard

The SEPTA crisis encapsulates a widespread policy hypocrisy: roads and sprawl receive automatic, entrenched subsidies, while transit must fight for crumbs.

The federal government allocates a vast majority of transportation dollars to highways and roads, even in the face of clear research that more lanes don’t reduce traffic, and that car-dependency is driving environmental devastation.

For example, Biden’s 2021 infrastructure law, which is often considered a win for transit, dedicated $379 billion highways and $116 billion for transit over many years. And that’s under “pro-transit” leadership.

It’s simply a myth that roads and highways are self-sustaining while transit is a “handout.”

Drivers don’t pay the full social and environmental costs of roads, parking, or sprawling suburban infrastructure. These are routinely absorbed by all taxpayers, irrespective of usage. And that’s okay to an extent! The fact that driving is still so expensive despite so much subsidy indicates that it’s just less efficient, especially as we look ahead and attempt to address the cost-of-living crisis.

All transportation, whether rail, road, plane, or boat, is subsidized.

The Circular Logic of Tranist Funding

Many anti-public transit politicians and thinkers will make a free market argument: that if the U.S. wanted more transit, then people would use it. But most people simply use whichever service is better.

When the majority of the public transportation money pie goes to roads, it creates a circular logic: underfunded transit → service declines → critics demand efficiency or cost-cutting → justify funding cuts further.

So rural and suburban areas get their roads, paid for by all taxpayers, while city residents who rely on transit directly or indirectly get their service cut.

This is the hypocrisy at the core: a system designed to privilege personal vehicle use, yet penalize and underfund collective mobility.

Pennsylvania Won’t Allow Philadelphia to Raise Its Own Funds

In Pennsylvania, the anti-urban logic goes even further. SEPTA is a regional, not a city entity. This prevents the city of Philadelphia from raising taxes to fund to city transit services.

This is not unique to PA. New York’s MTA faces similar structural problems.

Why Cutting Transit Hurts Everyone

It’s tempting for legislators who don’t ride the bus or train to view SEPTA’s crisis as someone else’s problem. What they ignore is how good transit benefits everyone. Every single American benefits from the New York Subway and its efficiency at moving millions of people a day. The same goes here. Better transit in cities means a more efficient economic life. It means more people can get to more places and jobs more easily.

When a single bus carries 40 people, that’s 40 fewer cars clogging the Schuylkill Expressway or competing for scarce downtown parking. Rail and bus networks move people far more efficiently than private vehicles ever could, easing congestion for drivers and saving time and money for entire regions.

Transit also shapes the built environment. When reliable transit exists, housing development tends to cluster around stations and bus corridors. That density means shorter commutes, more affordable housing options, and stronger neighborhood businesses. Cut transit, and you push people outward into farther-flung suburbs, driving up both housing costs and traffic.

Then there’s equity. Roughly 30% of Americans don’t drive, whether because they’re too young, too old, disabled, or simply can’t afford a car.

Teenagers, seniors, and low-income families are disproportionately affected when transit disappears. Car dependency leaves them stranded, excluded from work, healthcare, or community life.

And then there’s climate. Transportation is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and cars are overwhelmingly to blame. Expanding highways while cutting transit is a recipe for higher emissions and hotter cities. This is not only for the emissions of vehicles, but also the environmental disaster of sprawl led by car-dependent planning.

The Bigger Picture: What America Gets Wrong About Transit

Pennsylvania’s transit crisis isn’t an outlier. The only thing notable about it is that SEPTA and other transit systems have decent service now, a miracle given the urban-rural divide in Pennsylvania that’s as fierce as anywhere.

Again and again, U.S. transit systems are strung along with temporary fixes and one-off funding schemes, never given the kind of stable, long-term investment that roads enjoy. Instead of treating buses and trains as permanent, essential infrastructure, we act as if they’re side projects that can be paused or cut back when budgets get tight.

In much of the world, transit is understood as a public service, no different from schools, sewers, or electricity. Japan, France, Germany, and countless other countries pour steady resources into networks.

In the U.S., by contrast, we argue over whether transit should “pay for itself,” as if that same standard were ever applied to roads, police, or fire departments.

Behind this lies a stubborn myth: that more roads mean more freedom. But the opposite is true. Sprawl locks people into longer, more expensive commutes, with few alternatives when traffic jams or gas prices spike. Transit, by contrast, expands freedom—it gives people choices about how to get around, where to live, and how to participate in their communities.

The “open road” as freedom has turned out to be powerful propaganda.

When Politicians Tell on Themselves: Negative Projection as Propaganda

We need more transit, not less. More options, not less.